Real significance of the Space Race

BruceJohnJennerLawso

Dread Lord of the Idiots
Addon Developer
Joined
Apr 14, 2012
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
0
Points
36
If you've ever played BARIS (as I did a few months back) & lost the race to the moon to the soviets (as I did most emphatically), the game shows you a screen with the lucky cosmonaut on the moon and an alternate history where the US falls on its face, the soviets invade, and the whole world is blown away in nuclear inferno.

Yeah, just what I thought, a little sketchy...

So my question is, what was the real impact of the space race? What would our world have looked like if the CSSR had pulled off a Hail Mary & beaten the US to the punch. Would the US have become the only remaining superpower, or would the Soviet Union have taken its place. Did winning the space race ever really matter?
 
The Soviets would have gotten a massive propaganda boost with the first man in orbit, EVA, and on the Moon under their belt. They may have focused their efforts on a permanent Lunar surface base, similar to their efforts in LEO with Salyut and Mir. It's also possible that the Space Race would have been extended to further goals such as Mars. Far reaching effects such as staving off collapse for a few more years is possible, but preventing it all together seems unlikely, given the deep seated problems the USSR had, such as massive nuclear and conventional arms spending among other things.
 
An interesting what if ...

With the propaganda win under their belt I think they would have retreated to LEO even faster than the Americans did.

Assuming the win was achieved not merely with different engineering choices but with greater spending, and considering the relative economic inefficiency of the Soviet system, it may have hastened the USSRs collapse - I imagine along the same lines of 1989-91, but not more dangerously than that.

Further, the US public's support for space spending would presumably have collapsed (it was only ever majority support at the time of Apollo 11 - see Roger Launius' work) curtailing the Apollo missions sooner and likely affecting spending on the STS.

So to answer the question:
Did winning the space race ever really matter?

IMO, not in terms of big impacts on geopolitical history. The achievement is important, as a testament to human potential, but I think that would be the same no matter who got there first. Of course I come at this from an international perspective ...
 
Last edited:
Of course I come at this from an international perspective ...

As do I of course ;)

An interesting what if ...

With the propaganda win under their belt I think they would have retreated to LEO even faster than the Americans did.

Perhaps...

But arguably, if the N-1 had been successful in its all-up testing (and that's a really, really big if), wouldn't a command economy structure have allowed for running lunar missions even beyond what Apollo accomplished?
 
or maybe the cost of the N-1 and moon missions would have bankrupted Russia sooner than Buran did?

Apollo was insanely expensive, one reason why the move to shuttle was made.
 
An interesting what if ...
Further, the US public's support for space spending would presumably have collapsed (it was only ever majority support at the time of Apollo 11 - see Roger Launius' work) curtailing the Apollo missions sooner and likely affecting spending on the STS.

Only part I don't agree with. Support for space spending would pick UP, since the U.S. couldn't let the Soviet accomplishments go unchecked. Similar to the Sputnik scare and the Yuri's first spaceflight. From what I understand, if Shepard had beaten Gagarin, there may have been no Moon mission at all. And billions were already invested in the program.

If anything, Soviets first on the Moon might have meant a U.S. Mars mission in the 80s.
 
Last edited:
If anything, Soviets first on the Moon might have meant a U.S. Mars mission in the 80s.

Not a chance. The capability wasn't there, and still isn't.

The Moon missions were accomplished by taking risks that would be considered insane today. For short trips those risks were sort of manageable with a bit of luck. But for a mission duration of 1+ year you can't take those kind of chances. You will run out of luck eventually. Just look at STS.
 
or maybe the cost of the N-1 and moon missions would have bankrupted Russia sooner than Buran did?

Apollo was insanely expensive, one reason why the move to shuttle was made.

Compared to the Manhattan Project it was cheap! What made STS so much cheaper than Apollo? IMO nothing, they both were very expensive, and amounted to about the same investment.

ISS with STS lumped in was about 300 Billion US
Apollo total was about 150 Billion US

both are equal in 2010 money values, it's all in how you look at the dollars you want to compare.

The N-1, was a money pit from day 1, completely unmanageable, unsustainable, and a totally insane design to boot. At least STS and Apollo were elegant and refined. The N-1 was a beast, the essence of brut force without rhyme or reason.

JMTC worth...
 
Not a chance. The capability wasn't there, and still isn't.

The Moon missions were accomplished by taking risks that would be considered insane today. For short trips those risks were sort of manageable with a bit of luck. But for a mission duration of 1+ year you can't take those kind of chances. You will run out of luck eventually. Just look at STS.

Where is the capability lacking in your opinion? Just curious of course.

Just a note though, I completely agree that a US to mars space race sort of situation isn't very likely. The investments for that to happen are far beyond what Apollo commanded.

Compared to the Manhattan Project it was cheap! What made STS so much cheaper than Apollo? IMO nothing, they both were very expensive, and amounted to about the same investment.

ISS with STS lumped in was about 300 Billion US
Apollo total was about 150 Billion US

both are equal in 2010 money values, it's all in how you look at the dollars you want to compare.

The N-1, was a money pit from day 1, completely unmanageable, unsustainable, and a totally insane design to boot. At least STS and Apollo were elegant and refined. The N-1 was a beast, the essence of brut force without rhyme or reason.

JMTC worth...

Well parts of N-1 were apparently good, but the design in general wasn't very good. It was rather uncharacteristic for the soviets to rush a design that much, shows just how badly they wanted to win I would say.
 
Well parts of N-1 were apparently good, but the design in general wasn't very good. It was rather uncharacteristic for the soviets to rush a design that much, shows just how badly they wanted to win I would say.

The N-1 had the dogma of Korolev, but not the genius. But the engines had been much better than the rocket.

Already staged combustion, when the Americans still used gas-generator cycle, because all better engine cycles failed in their hands. Without German patents from MBB, they wouldn't even have managed building the SSME (As you can see at the RS-68, which is again gas-generator cycle).

But the spacerace was only a tiny episode in the cold war. The unmanned space race was decided by the Russians, who deployed more and sometimes better espionage satellites in space than the USA (For example, the USA still have no satellite, that can also guide missiles to an aircraft carrier. The Chinese and the Russians have it).

What lost the cold war had been plain economics. Not communism vs capitalism... the USA are still close to economic collapse, because only the sequestration now slowly makes them enter the post-coldwar economy.

When Nikita Khrushchev had been ruling the USSR, he almost managed to leave the terrible dogmatic decisions of the Stalin era behind. The USSR had then pretty Chinese growth rates. His successors returned to Stalins errors, and thus, economic growth collapsed, economic commands had been again against the demand of anybody, corruption exploded... and bang, you get a Gorbachev, who decides that an end with a shock is better than a shock without end. Now Russia returns to Stalin again... (But that is politics, a topic for a different forum)
 
Assuming the win was achieved not merely with different engineering choices but with greater spending, and considering the relative economic inefficiency of the Soviet system, it may have hastened the USSRs collapse - I imagine along the same lines of 1989-91, but not more dangerously than that.

Reducing everything to economics is the greatest disease of our times. If our ancestors followed economics, they would be still sitting on trees. After all, what sense does it make to go down to the ground and face all these predators, when trees offer relative safety?

In human society, there are forces stronger than economics. Vision. Inspiration. Values. Collective dreams. If one can plant ideas in people's minds, what kind of power does he have? Enormous. That's the power that transcends political and cultural boundaries, the power which dwarfs economic or military might. Perhaps the best popular explanation of the concept is in the movie Inception:

Dom Cobb: Mr. Saito, this...this isn't your typical corporate espionage. You...you asked me for inception, I do hope you understand the gravity of that request. The seed that we plant in this man's mind will grow into an idea. This idea will define him. It may come to change...well, it may come to change everything about him.

Dom Cobb: "I will split up my father's empire." Now this is obviously an idea that Robert himself will choose to reject. Which is why we need to plant it deep in his subconscious. Subconscious is motivated by emotion, right? Not reason. We need to find a way to translate this into an emotional concept.
Arthur: How do you translate a business stratedgy into an emotion?

What, then, do you need to plant ideas into people's mind?

Images.

Apollo produced three images which entered collective subconcious.

The first one was the Earthrise photo from Apollo 8. That image, together with The Blue Marble from Apollo 17 became the catalyst of the environmetal movement. The most unexpected result of the whole endeavour, probably. The third image was, of course, AS11-40-5874 -- Buzz Aldrin standing next to the US flag on the Moon. The most expensive photo in the whole history of propaganda. Yet also one of the most powerful.

as11_40_5874.jpg


The world's kids (Soviet kids included) saw an American flag on the Moon. The Americans have touched the Moon, and so, even the sky was no longer a limit for them. This was instrumental in instilling the idea that the American system is better than the Soviet system in the collective subconcious of the humanity.

After some 20 years, the idea became even acceped by the Soviet leaders, who dissolved the Union and embraced capitalism. Ironically, this has caused their country to enter a deep crisis, which dwarfed the economic problems of 1980.

640px-Soviet_Union_GDP.gif


And so, the OP's question cannot be merely analyzed on political grounds. You must think what ideas would be incepted into human minds by different images.

If the world had seen a Soviet flag on the Moon, would the world instead accept superiority of the Soviet system and started moving to a more collective social and economic model?

If people had seen a Soviet and an American shaking hands on the Moon, would they opt to choose cooperation over the insanity of arms race?
 
What made STS so much cheaper than Apollo? IMO nothing, they both were very expensive, and amounted to about the same investment.

You are correct but at the time of Apollo's cancelling, STS was touted as a cheap and routine access to space. Of course, 20/20 hindsight shows that not the be case but try walking around in 1978 and stating that.
 
Where is the capability lacking in your opinion? Just curious of course.

We don't know the effects of a long term journey outside Earth's magnetic field.
We still haven't had anyone spending that amount of time in microgravity. Take a look at some post-landing pictures of Soyuz crews. They are not exactly ready to go exploring.
 
ISS with STS lumped in was about 300 Billion US
Apollo total was about 150 Billion US

both are equal in 2010 money values, it's all in how you look at the dollars you want to compare.
Unlike the shuttle and ISS programs, Apollo happened in less than a decade (to land the first crews on the moon). Despite more money being spent on manned LEO missions, the lower funding levels over the past few decades may not suffice for a Mars mission. Projects would develop more slowly, but analysts say a Mars mission cannot happen at current funding levels. Apollo had massive funding and all aspects of the program had to be ready by the end of the 1960s, however, there is no definitive date to land people on Mars. The only hardware being developed is Orion, the SLS, and space suits. That leaves a lot to be created, from the descent/ascent module to the place that must support the astronauts during transits. The crew would require enough supplies for a very long journey and must be physically ready to explore Mars after months in space. This doesn't even mention the ionizing radiation the astronauts will be exposed to throughout the mission.

Planetary protection may be an issue that could prevent sending humans to Mars. When humans reach the Martian surface, the planet would become contaminated. NASA has plenty of money to robotically explore many fascinating worlds in the near future, but not enough for manned spaceflight too.
 
After some 20 years, the idea became even acceped by the Soviet leaders, who dissolved the Union and embraced capitalism. Ironically, this has caused their country to enter a deep crisis, which dwarfed the economic problems of 1980.

Actually, the plot is a bit misleading, since it only shows total GDP and ignores the fact, that not only the USSR lost many economic allies (especially the GDR), but also many citizens, which then quickly left for the west.

Population_of_former_USSR.PNG


As you can see, the drop in population and the drop in GDP of the FSU happen at the same time and restore at the same time.

It is not that simple, the economic effects also include the changes in the trade routes. Also the GDP data of the soviet union have to be taken with a fair amount of skepticism. It is a statistic, that is likely as accurate as the statistics of many other countries: Not much.

Greece had been a great economic country, until suddenly people started to calculate... with similar effects on the GDP
 
Planetary protection may be an issue that could prevent sending humans to Mars. When humans reach the Martian surface, the planet would become contaminated. NASA has plenty of money to robotically explore many fascinating worlds in the near future, but not enough for manned spaceflight too.

I love the way everyone is so scared of "contaminating" a barren, uninhabitable dust ball that hasn't harbored life for thousands if not millions of years.
 
I love the way everyone is so scared of "contaminating" a barren, uninhabitable dust ball that hasn't harbored life for thousands if not millions of years.

Mars is very likely to harbor life in the form of simple bacteria right now.
 
I love the way everyone is so scared of "contaminating" a barren, uninhabitable dust ball that hasn't harbored life for thousands if not millions of years.
Certain areas of Mars have running water. No present spacecraft is sterilized enough to land inside the craters with seasonal water flows down the rim. There may be life underneath the layers of ice where temperatures and pressures are high enough to support liquid water.

AckHEM,

:offtopic:

;)
Mars is the next logical destination for humans ever since Apollo, but the fact that it may harbor life is a problem as I said. Not finding life doesn't indicate that there is no life on Mars.
 
Back
Top